Element contents
Series: Elements in Construction Grammar
Can Construction Grammar Be Proven Wrong?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2024
Summary
Construction Grammar has gained prominence in linguistics, owing its popularity to its inclusive approach that considers language units of varying sizes and generality as potential constructions – mentally stored form-function units. This Element serves as a cautionary note against complacency and dogmatism. It emphasizes the enduring importance of falsifiability as a criterion for scientific hypotheses and theories. Can every postulated construction, in principle, be empirically demonstrated not to exist? As a case study, the author examines the schematic English transitive verb-particle construction, which defies experimental verification. He argues that we can still reject its non-existence using sound linguistic reasoning. But beyond individual constructions, what could be a crucial test for Construction Grammar itself, one that would falsify it as a theory? In making a proposal for such a test, designed to prove that speakers also exhibit pure-form knowledge, this Element contributes to ongoing discussions about Construction Grammar's theoretical foundations.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Construction GrammarOnline ISBN: 9781009343213Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 01 February 2024
References
Anthonissen, L. & Petré, P. (2019). Grammaticalization and the linguistic individual: New avenues in lifespan research. Linguistics Vanguard, 5(s2). http://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0037.Google Scholar
Audring, J. (2019). Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, 12(3), 274–296.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2011). The rise of Dative Substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar account, Lingua, 121, 60–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L. & Gildea, S., eds. (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. C. & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why Only Us: Language and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bîlbîie, G. & de la Fuente, I. (2019). Can gapping be embedded? Experimental evidence from Spanish. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 110. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.782.Google Scholar
Bird, A. (2018). Thomas, Kuhn. In Zalta, E. N., Nodelman, U., Allen, C., et al., eds., Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/.Google Scholar
Blank, I. & Fedorenko, E. (2017). Domain-general brain regions do not track linguistic input as closely as language-selective regions. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(41), 9999–10011. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3642-16.2017.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Standard, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2008). Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 113–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2021). Construction Grammar and frame semantics. In Xu, W. & Taylor, J. R., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 43–77.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., ed. (2022). Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., Leino, J., & Lyngfelt, B. (to appear a). Berkeley, we have a problem: Some questions for Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., Leino, J., & Lyngfelt, B. (to appear b). Introduction: Issues of the theme. Construction and Frames.Google Scholar
Bouveret, M. & Legallois, D. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and the notion of construction in French studies: An overview. In Legallois, D. & Bouveret, M., eds., Constructions in French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., Liversedge, S. P., Stewart, A. J., & Urbach, T. P. (1995). Syntactic priming: Investigating the mental representation of language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 489–506.Google Scholar
Broccias, C. (2013). Cognitive Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 191–210.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S. & Gonzálvez-García, F. (2014). Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2012). Domain-general processes as the basis for grammar. In Tallerman, M. & Gibson, K. R., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 528–536.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 49–69.Google Scholar
Campbell, K. L. & Tyler, L. K. (2018). Language-related domain-specific and domain-general systems in the human brain. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 21, 132–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cappelle, B. (2002). And up it rises: Particle preposing in English. In Dehé, N., Jackendoff, R., McIntyre, A. & Urban, S., eds., Verb-Particle Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 43–66.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” Constructions, special volume 1, 1–28. https://constructions.journals.hhu.de/article/view/381.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2008). The grammar of complex particle phrases in English. In Asbury, A., Dotlacil, J., Gehrke, B., & Nouwen, R., eds., Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 103–145.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2009). Contextual cues for particle placement: Multiplicity, motivation, modeling. In Bergs, A. & Diewald, G., eds., Context in Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 145–192.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2022). Lexical integrity: A mere contruct or more a construction? Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association (GCLA), 10, 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2023). Verb-particle constructions. In Aronoff, M., ed., Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780199772810-0311.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B., Fagundes Travassos, P., Almeida Mota, N., et al. (2021). Constructional variation: Unveiling aspects of linguistic knowledge: Interview with Bert Cappelle. Revista da Anpoll, 52(Special Issue), 258–306.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. & Grabar, N. (2016). Towards an n-grammar of English. In Knop, S. De & Gilquin, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 271–302.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1961). On the notion “rule of grammar.” In Jacobson, R., ed., Structure of Language and Its Mathematical Aspects. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, pp. 6–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1962). Explanatory models in linguistics. In Nagel, E., Suppes, P., & Tarski, A., eds., Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 528–550.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., & Uriagereka, J., eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2015[1995]). The Minimalist Program, twentieth-anniversary edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2017). Language architecture and its import for evolution. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 81(B), 295–300.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. H. & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(5), 489–509.Google Scholar
Clark, A. & Lappin, S. (2011). Linguistic Nativism and the Poverty of the Stimulus. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Crain, S., Koring, L., & Thornton, R. (2017). Language acquisition from a biolinguistic perspective. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 81(B), 120–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2015). What exactly is universal grammar, and has anyone seen it? Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (Article 852). http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D., eds. (2015). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., ed. (2021). The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–19). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 600 million words, 1990–present. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G., eds. (2016). Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Derksen, M. (2019). Putting Popper to work. Theory & Psychology, 29(4), 449–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desagulier, G. (2017). Corpus Linguistics and Statistics with R: Introduction to Quantitative Methods in Linguistics. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Diachek, E., Blank, I., Siegelman, M., Affourtit, J., & Fedorenko, E. (2020). The domain-general multiple-demand (MD) network does not support core aspects of language comprehension: A large-scale fMRI investigation. Journal of Neuroscience, 40(23), 4536–4550.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2023). The Constructicon: Taxonomies and Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M. (2007). We need simpler syntax, but we can do without a grammar of the gaps. https://ideophone.org/simpler-syntax-or-grammar-of-the-gaps/.Google Scholar
Divjak, D. (2015). Four challenges for usage-based linguistics. In Daems, J., Zenner, E., Heylen, K., Speelman, D., & Cuyckens, H., eds., Change of Paradigms: New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 297–309.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. (2017a). Computational learning of construction grammars. Language and Cognition, 9(2), 254–292.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. (2017b). Learnability and falsifiability of Construction Grammars. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 2(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Earp, B. & Trafimow, D. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (Article 621). http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621.Google Scholar
Edmonds, D. & Warburton, N. (2010). Philosophy Bites. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, N. & Levinson, S. C. (2009a). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 429–448.Google Scholar
Evans, N. & Levinson, S. C. (2009b). With diversity in mind: Freeing the language sciences from universal grammar. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 472–484.Google Scholar
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2002). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Everett, D. L. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology, 46(4), 621–646.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, E., Behr, M. K., & Kanwisher, N. (2011). Functional specificity for high-level linguistic processing in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(39), 16428–16433.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, E., Blank, I. A., Siegelman, M., and Mineroff, Z. (2020). Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network. Cognition, 203 (Article 104348). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104348.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, E. & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2014). Reworking the language network. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(3), 120–126. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.006.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In the Linguistic Society of Korea, ed. Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, pp. 111–137.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985a). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985b). Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. In Niepokuj, M., van Clay, M., Nikiforidou, V., & Feder, D., eds., Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society, pp. 73–86.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar.” In Axmaker, S., Jaisser, A., & Singmaster, H., eds., Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society, pp. 35–55.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1989). Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In Dietrich, R. & Graumann, C. F., eds., Language Processing in Social Context. Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier, pp. 17–38.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2020). Papers on Linguistic Theory and Constructions. Vol. III of Form and Meaning in Language, edited by Gras, P., Östman, J.-O., & Verschueren, J.. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R. R., & Rhomieux, R. (2012). The FrameNet Constructicon. In Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A. (eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 309–372.Google Scholar
Forsberg, M., Johansson, R., Bäckström, L., et al. (2014). From construction candidates to construction entries: An experiment using semi-automatic methods for identifying constructions in corpora. Constructions and Frames, 6(1), 114–135.Google Scholar
Geeraarts, D. & Cuyckens, H., eds. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gisborne, N. (2011). Constructions, word grammar, and grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 155–182. http://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.007.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1996). Jackendoff and construction-based grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 3–19.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In Hoffman, T. and Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–31.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Michaelis, L. A. (2016). One among many: Anaphoric one and its relationship with numeral one. Cognitive Science, 41(Suppl. 2), 233–258.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Perek, F. (2019). Ellipsis in Construction Grammar. In van Craenenbroeck, J. & Temmerman, T., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 188–204.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2003[1964]). Syntax and the consumer. In Webster, J. J., ed., On Language and Linguistics. Vol. 3 in the Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday. London: Continuum, pp. 36–49.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2013). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harris, R. A. (2021). The Linguistics Wars: Chomsky, Lakoff, and the Battle over Deep Structure, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, S. (2015). Empty constructions and the meaning of “meaning.” Replicated Typo. www.replicatedtypo.com/empty-constructions-and-the-meaning-of-meaning/10316.htmlGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, S. & Pleyer, M. (2021). Constructing a protolanguage: Reconstructing prehistoric languages in a usage-based construction grammar framework. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1824). http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0200.Google Scholar
Hartmann, S. & Sommerer, L. (2022). “Constructions”: Entering a new era. Constructions, 14, 1–3.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2020). Human linguisticality and the building blocks of languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 31 (Article 3389). http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03056.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2023). On what a construction is. Constructions, 15(1). http://doi.org/10.24338/cons-539.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–1579.Google Scholar
Hendrikx, L. & Van Goethem, K. (2018). Intensifying constructions in second language acquisition: A diasystematic-constructionist approach. In Boas, H. C. & Höder, S., eds., Constructions in Contact 2: Language Change, Multilingual Practices, and Additional Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Herbst, T. (2016). Foreign language learning is construction learning – what else? Moving towards Pedagogical Construction Grammar. In Knop, S. De & Gilquin, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 21–52.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2019). Construction Grammar and Its Application to English, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2021). Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill Online.Google Scholar
Höder, S. (2012). Multilingual constructions: A diasystematic approach to common structures. In Braunmüller, K. & Gabriel, C., eds., Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 241–257.Google Scholar
Höder, S. (2019). Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: A diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure, 12(3), 334–352.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2013). Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 307–328.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2020). What would it take for us to abandon Construction Grammar: Falsifiability, confirmation bias and the future of the constructionist enterprise. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 149–161.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar: The Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollmann, W. B. (2022). Generative vs. usage-based approaches to language. In Culpeper, J., Malory, B., Nance, C., et al., eds., Introducing Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 449–458.Google Scholar
Holme, R. (2010). Construction grammars: Towards a pedagogical model. AILA Review, 23, 115–133.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (2006). Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hurford, J. R. (2012). The Origins of Grammar: Language in the Light of Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ivanova, A. A., Mineroff, Z., Zimmerer, V., et al. (2021). The language network is recruited but not required for nonverbal event semantics. Neurobiology of Language, 2(2), 176–201. http://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00030.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-bar-Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2008). Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges. Language, 84(1), 8–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2010). Meaning and the Lexicon: The Parallel Architecture 1975–2010. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. & Audring, J. (2019). The Texture of the Lexicon: Relational Morphology in the Parallel Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. & Audring, J. (2020). Relational morphology: A cousin of Construction Grammar. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 (Article 2241). http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02241.Google Scholar
Janda, L. J. (2007). From cognitive linguistics to cultural linguistics. Word & Sense, 8, 48–68. http://slovoasmysl.ff.cuni.cz/node/222.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. A. & Goldberg, A. E. (2012). Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(10), 1439–1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, K. T. (1996). The Logic of Reliable Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. (2012[1962]). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 50th anniversary ed. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A., eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–195.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1974). The role of crucial experiments in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 4(4), 309–325.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Vol. 1 of Philosophical Papers, edited by Worrall, J. & Currie, G.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2002). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. 2nd ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2005a). Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. Ruiz & Sandra Peña Cervel, M., eds., Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 101–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2005b). Integration, grammaticization, and constructional meaning. In Fried, M. & Boas, H. C., eds., Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 157–189.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Cognitive (Construction) Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 167–176. http://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.010.Google Scholar
Laporte, S., Larsson, T., & Goulart, L. (2021). Testing the principle of no synonymy across levels of abstraction: A constructional account of subject extraposition. Constructions and Frames, 13(2), 230–262.Google Scholar
Leclercq, B. (2019). Coercion: A case of saturation. Constructions and Frames, 11(2), 270–289.Google Scholar
Leclercq, B. (2024). Linguistic Knowledge and Language Use: Bridging Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leclercq, B. & Morin, C. (2023). No equivalence: A new principle of no synonymy. Constructions, 15(1). http://doi.org/10.24338/cons-535.Google Scholar
Legallois, D. (2022). Une perspective constructionnelle et localiste de la transitivité. London: Iste Group.Google Scholar
Levshina, N. & Moran, S.. (2021). Efficiency in human languages: Corpus evidence for universal principles. Linguistics Vanguard, 7(s3). http://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0081.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Forsberg, M., et al. (2012). Adding a Constructicon to the Swedish resource network of Språkbanken. In Proceedings of KONVENS 2012 (LexSem 2012 workshop). Vienna, Austria: ÖGAI, pp. 452–461.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T., eds. (2018). Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Meehl, Paul E. (1990). Appraising and amending theories: The strategy of Lakatosian defense and two principles that warrant it. Psychological Inquiry, 1(2), 108–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montalbetti, M. (1984). After binding: On the interpretation of pronouns. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Müller, S. (2018). A Lexicalist Account of Argument Structure: Template-Based Phrasal LFG Approaches and a Lexical HPSG Alternative. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Müller, S. (2023). Grammatical Theory: From Transformational Grammar to Constraint-Based Approaches, 5th revised ed. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (1996). Generative Linguistics: A Historical Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (1998). Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K., Fried, M., Zima, E., & Bergs, A., eds. (to appear). The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Noël, D. (2007). Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, 14(2), 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noël, D. & Colleman, T. (2021). Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Xu, W. & Taylor, J. R., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 661–674.Google Scholar
Nolan, B. & Diedrichsen, E., eds. (2013). Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Perek, F. (2012). Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(3), 601–635.Google Scholar
Perek, F. (2021). Construction Grammar in action: The English Constructicon project. CogniTextes, 21. http://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P. & Van de Velde, F. (2018). The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language, 94(4), 867–901.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1970). Normal science and its dangers. In Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A., eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 51–58. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171434.007.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (2002[1959[1935]]). The Logic of Scientific Discovery [translation by the author of Logik der Forschung]. Republished. London: Routledge Classics.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. & Scholz, B. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. Linguistic Review, 19(1–2), 9–50.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F., Cappelle, B., & Shtyrov, Y. (2013). Brain basis of meaning, words, constructions, and grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 397–416.Google Scholar
Riesch, H. (2008). Scientists’ views of the philosophy of science. Doctoral dissertation. London: University College London.Google Scholar
Sag, I. (2012). Sign-based Grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 61–197.Google Scholar
Salkie, R. (1984). Review of Thirty Million Theories of Grammar by James D. McCawley. Journal of Linguistics, 20(1), 202–204.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. (1980). Schools of Linguistics: Competition and Evolution. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. (2016). Rigid strings and flaky snowflakes. Language and Cognition, 8(4), 587–603.Google Scholar
Sandra, D. & Rice, S. (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 89–130.Google Scholar
Scheel, A. M., Tiokhin, L., Isager, P. M., & Lakens, D. (2021). Why hypothesis testers should spend less time testing hypotheses. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 744–755. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966795.Google Scholar
Smet, H., D’hoedt, F., Fonteyn, L., & Van Goethem, K. (2018). The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(2), 197–234.Google Scholar
Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E., eds. (2020). Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sönning, L. & Werner, V. (2021). The replication crisis, scientific revolutions, and linguistics. Linguistics, 59(5), 1179–1206. http://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0045.Google Scholar
Sprenger, J. & Hartmann, S. (2019). Bayesian Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tallman, A. J. R. (2021). Analysis and falsifiability in practice. Theoretical Linguistics, 47(1–2): 95–112.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic Categorization, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2009). Universal grammar is dead. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5): 470–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., and Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(5), 675–691.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. T. (2012). Usage-based models in linguistics: An interview with Joan Bybee. Revista Linguíʃtica, 8(1). https://revistas.ufrj.br/index.php/rl/article/view/4469/3241.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2022). Ten Lectures on a Diachronic Constructionalist Approach to Discourse Structuring Markers. Leiden: Brill Online.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Uhrig, P. (2015). Why the principle of no synonymy is overrated. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 63(3), 323–337.Google Scholar
Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H.-J. 2006. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics, 2nd ed. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. (to appear). Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks: Two sides of the same coin? Constructions and Frames. https://tungerer.github.io/files/Ungerer-forthc-Vertical-and-horizontal-links.pdf (prepublished version).Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. & Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist Approaches: Past, Present, Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., & Rutten, G., eds., Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, pp. 141–179.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. & LaPolla, R. (1997). Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wible, D. & Taso, N. (2010). StringNet as a computational resource for discovering and investigating linguistic constructions. In Sahlgren, M. & Knutsson, O., eds., Proceedings of the Workshop on Extracting and Using Constructions in Computational Linguistics. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 25–31.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, M. (2013). Testing the null hypothesis: The forgotten legacy of Karl Popper? Journal of Sports Sciences, 31(9), 919–920. http://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.753636.Google Scholar
Woschitz, J. (2020). Scientific realism and linguistics: Two stories of scientific progress. In Nefdt, R. M., Klippe, C., & Karstens, B., eds., The Philosophy and Science of Language: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 143–177.Google Scholar
Xu, W. & Taylor, J. R. (2021). The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yang, C. D. (2002). Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J., Bencini, G., Goldberg, A. E., & Snedeker, J. (2019). How abstract is syntax? Evidence from structural priming. Cognition, 193: 104045. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104045.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by